Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 09:45:04 -0800, Roger wrote:

Hi Richard,

The math seems to work, but if you have no use for it, disregard it. On
the other hand, if another perspective of electro magnetics that
conforms to traditional mathematics can provide additional insight, use it.

Hi Roger,

This does not answer why TWO mathematics (both traditional) are
needed, especially since one is clearly an approximation of the other,
and yet offers no obvious advantage. I've already spoken to the
hazards of approximations being elevated to proof by well-meaning, but
slightly talented amateurs.

The derivation did several things for me. It clearly explains why we do
not have a runaway current when we first connect a voltage to a
transmission line, what transmission line impedance is, that moving
particles can not be the entire explanation for the electromagnetic wave
(because the energy field moves much faster than the electrons), and
puts into place a richer understanding of inductance.

I am surprised at your criticism in using DC. To me, a square wave is
DC for a short time period.

This single statement, alone, is enough to be self-negating. You
could as easily call a car with a standard stick shift an automatic
between the times you use the clutch - but that won't sell cars, will
it?

We could use the concept of a stepped wave, but that would imply the
need for several steps to develop the formula. Only the square wave
front and continued charge maintenance is required, observations that
can be easily verified by experiment.

Is the observation that a square wave can
be described as a series of sine waves troubling to you? Perhaps the
observation that a square wave might include waves of a frequency so
high that they would not be confined in a normal transmission line is
surprising or troubling to you?

DC as sine waves is not a contradiction on the face of it? DC that
consists of waves of a frequency so high that it would not be confined
in a normal transmission line is very surprising, isn't it?


What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves. This leads Cecil to comment that the leading edge of a square
wave could be composed of photons, which is a valid observation. It
also explains your observation that true square waves are not possible
(I am paraphrasing your comments) because of dispersion.

It is interesting to run an FFT on a square wave to see how the
frequencies can be resolved.

Would it surprise you to find your batteries in their packaging direct
from the store are radiating on the shelf? They are DC, are they not?
If the arguments of your sources works for an infinite line, they must
be equally true for an infinitesimal open line. When your headlights
are on, do they set off radar detectors in cars nearby because of the
high frequencies now associated with DC?

They only set off the radar detectors when I turn them on and off. I
have high power lights!! A lightning strike is a much better example of
DC containing high frequencies.


My goal is to better understand electromagnetic phenomena. You have
given some very astute insight many times in the past and thanks for
that. Negative comment is equally valuable, but sometimes a little
harder to swallow.

The pollution of terms such as DC to serve a metaphor that replaces
conventional line mechanics is too shallow glass to attempt to quench
any thirst.

The puzzle here is the insistence on hugging DC, when every element of
all of your links could as easily substitute Stepped Wave and remove
objections. The snake in the wood pile is once having fudged what DC
means, it is only a sideways argument away from rendering the term DC
useless. Is the term Stepped Wave (the convention) anathema for a
leveraging the novel origination (the invention) of DC Wave?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term. It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC? It should only add to the
tools we have to explain electromagnetic waves.

73, Roger, W7WKB

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC? It should only add to the
tools we have to explain electromagnetic waves.

73, Roger, W7WKB

yes. because its WRONG. you have made an assumption that is not realistic
for any transmission line. There is no way a transmission line can have a
velocity factor of 1.0, just can't happen... all the equations fall apart
and become meaningless at that point. there is a reason for the velocity
factor, or beta, depending on which you prefer. learn it, and use it
properly, and it will serve you well.

On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:35:25 -0800, Roger wrote:

The derivation did several things for me. It clearly explains why we do
not have a runaway current when we first connect a voltage to a
transmission line,

Hi Roger,

It doesn't describe why the current flows in the first place, does it?

what transmission line impedance is, that moving
particles can not be the entire explanation for the electromagnetic wave
(because the energy field moves much faster than the electrons), and
puts into place a richer understanding of inductance.

And here we begin on the wonderful world of spiraling explanations,
not found in the original source: "Moving particles cannot be the
entire explanation?" How about that in the first place, particles
don't inhabit the explanation at all?

What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves.

I'm even convinced most of them would not call this DC too.

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term.

They would've been confused anyway.

It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.

And this is still DC?

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC?

This is best left in the privacy of the home.

However, none of your comments respond to the question: What is with
this death grip on DC? What makes it so important that it be so
tightly wedded to Waves? What mystery of the cosmos is answered with
this union that has so long escaped the notice of centuries of trained
thought?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
How about that in the first place, particles
don't inhabit the explanation at all?

How about quantum physics telling us that nothing
except particles exist? You really want to take
on the body of quantum physics and physicists?
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Richard Clark wrote:
On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:35:25 -0800, Roger wrote:

The derivation did several things for me. It clearly explains why we do
not have a runaway current when we first connect a voltage to a
transmission line,

Hi Roger,

It doesn't describe why the current flows in the first place, does it?

Are you asking for a discussion about batteries?

what transmission line impedance is, that moving
particles can not be the entire explanation for the electromagnetic wave
(because the energy field moves much faster than the electrons), and
puts into place a richer understanding of inductance.

And here we begin on the wonderful world of spiraling explanations,
not found in the original source: "Moving particles cannot be the
entire explanation?" How about that in the first place, particles
don't inhabit the explanation at all?
You originally asked what I learned from Zo = 1/cC. What I learn from
it may not be obvious to you. Discussing particles would be a
completely new discussion.

What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves.

I'm even convinced most of them would not call this DC too.

We agree on this.

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term.

They would've been confused anyway.

They don't seem to be confused, once the limitations of human language
are overcome. We have many very intelligent and astute observers in
this newsgroup.

It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.

And this is still DC?

Do you really know that mother nature is not ALWAYS operating in small
steps of DC? How small is the scale that you can resolve to? I can not
answer where DC starts and stops. Maybe you can?

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC?

This is best left in the privacy of the home.

It seems that a simple yes or no answer could suffice here. How is
"privacy in the home" related to Zo = 1/cC?


However, none of your comments respond to the question: What is with
this death grip on DC? What makes it so important that it be so
tightly wedded to Waves? What mystery of the cosmos is answered with
this union that has so long escaped the notice of centuries of trained
thought?

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Please elaborate about the "death grip on DC". How is DC related to
waves, or better, where does DC stop and waves begin? Should we never
consider any portion of a wave to be DC like we do in calculus routinely?

My original remark about about Zo = 1/cC expressed my surprise that such
a relationship existed. It was not an original discovery by me, only
new knowledge to me. From your reaction, this must be the first time
you have run across the equation and how it might be derived. I
provided two links to web pages where others have derived the equation
from a different aspect, and even more pathways exist. It seems to be a
very fundamental relationship despite being not well known or wide used.

73, Roger, W7WKB

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:24:06 -0800, Roger wrote:

It doesn't describe why the current flows in the first place, does it?

Are you asking for a discussion about batteries?

Hi Roger,

"About" batteries?

You originally asked what I learned from Zo = 1/cC.

Actually, my original was:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:08:54 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi Roger,
This last round has piqued my interest when we dipped into DC. Those
"formulas" would lead us to a DC wave velocity?
And I have repeated that request at frequent intervals as DC having a
wave velocity is quite a departure from the catechism.

What I learn from
it may not be obvious to you. Discussing particles would be a
completely new discussion.

OK, a completely new discussion that perhaps was not in your interest
to raise or expand upon here. I see nothing productive in it either.

What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves.

I'm even convinced most of them would not call this DC too.

We agree on this.

So, are we to discard this phenomenon of the clumsy current bulge so
illustrated at one of your links? It seems to have injected this
aberrant usage of DC which then donned the mantle of Wave.

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term.

They would've been confused anyway.

They don't seem to be confused, once the limitations of human language
are overcome. We have many very intelligent and astute observers in
this newsgroup.

Then they are not confused, simple so stunned as to not ask the
questions you anticipate. I haven't seen any objections, other than
yours, to the term Stepped Wave. Are you referring to private
correspondence?

It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.

And this is still DC?

Do you really know that mother nature is not ALWAYS operating in small
steps of DC? How small is the scale that you can resolve to? I can not
answer where DC starts and stops. Maybe you can?

With great certainty and precision. I have measured the fundamental
units of DC out 7 places, traceable to the National Bureau of
Standards. I have also measured AC from sub-Hertz to 12GHz to the
highest precision and certainties in the same occupation. The body of
science and engineering is not confused about this demarcation.

For any purpose of discussion, DC is regarded by science and
engineering to mean either:
1. Static, non-changing potential (your discussion violates this);
2. Constant, unvarying current (your discussion also violates this).

If your current or voltage cannot subscribe to these commonly held
descriptions, your currents and voltages are not DC.

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC?

This is best left in the privacy of the home.

It seems that a simple yes or no answer could suffice here. How is
"privacy in the home" related to Zo = 1/cC?

I have stated the harm several times, repetition does not seem to be
adequate in that your having perceived benefit is a personal choice. I
see no reason to dwell on the subjective.

Please elaborate about the "death grip on DC".

How is DC related to
waves, or better, where does DC stop and waves begin?

It was your premise. If you cannot explain it (and I see absolutely
nothing that would help you explain it) - then this is obviously the
end of the matter to which I first (see that question above) asked you
about.

Should we never
consider any portion of a wave to be DC like we do in calculus routinely?

Calculus is done "by parts." In derivation DC is the first thing to
disappear! In integration, DC arrives as an unknown! If this
discussion of Calculus were to progress any further, it would involve
dt which imagines no past, no future, just now. DC comes equipped
with all three nailed down to the same value.

My original remark about about Zo = 1/cC expressed my surprise that such
a relationship existed. It was not an original discovery by me, only
new knowledge to me. From your reaction, this must be the first time
you have run across the equation and how it might be derived. I
provided two links to web pages where others have derived the equation
from a different aspect, and even more pathways exist. It seems to be a
very fundamental relationship despite being not well known or wide used.

It is no more fundamental than when Tennessee state law mandated that
the value of PI would be 22/7ths. Your fundamental is merely a
shortcut, not a fact of nature. Like that Tennessee law, you can't
use it for very much when push comes to shove. I certainly wouldn't
buy tires based on the circumference calculated from Tennessee law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 08:24:06 -0800, Roger wrote:

It doesn't describe why the current flows in the first place, does it?
Are you asking for a discussion about batteries?

Hi Roger,

"About" batteries?

You originally asked what I learned from Zo = 1/cC.

Actually, my original was:
On Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:08:54 -0800, Richard Clark
wrote:
Hi Roger,
This last round has piqued my interest when we dipped into DC. Those
"formulas" would lead us to a DC wave velocity?
And I have repeated that request at frequent intervals as DC having a
wave velocity is quite a departure from the catechism.

The formula will not give a "DC wave" velocity, but one can be found
from the experiment. First however, we must agree upon what unit we are
to assign a velocity to.

What I learn from
it may not be obvious to you. Discussing particles would be a
completely new discussion.

OK, a completely new discussion that perhaps was not in your interest
to raise or expand upon here. I see nothing productive in it either.

What is your point here? Are implying that the formula is incorrect
because a sine wave was not mentioned in the derivation. I am sure that
all of the sophisticated readers of this news group understand that the
sharp corner of the square wave is composed of ever higher frequency
waves.
I'm even convinced most of them would not call this DC too.
We agree on this.

So, are we to discard this phenomenon of the clumsy current bulge so
illustrated at one of your links? It seems to have injected this
aberrant usage of DC which then donned the mantle of Wave.

Perhaps this goes toward the definition of the unit of DC that we might
assign a velocity to?

We would complicate the concept and thereby begin to confuse people if
we insisted on using the "Stepped Wave" term.
They would've been confused anyway.
They don't seem to be confused, once the limitations of human language
are overcome. We have many very intelligent and astute observers in
this newsgroup.

Then they are not confused, simple so stunned as to not ask the
questions you anticipate. I haven't seen any objections, other than
yours, to the term Stepped Wave. Are you referring to private
correspondence?

Nope, just what I have seen on the news group.


It is a simple step to
recognize that if we can make a wave front with one battery, we can use
a lot of batteries and carefully place and switch them to form a sine
wave. The more batteries and switches, the better the representation.
And this is still DC?
Do you really know that mother nature is not ALWAYS operating in small
steps of DC? How small is the scale that you can resolve to? I can not
answer where DC starts and stops. Maybe you can?

With great certainty and precision. I have measured the fundamental
units of DC out 7 places, traceable to the National Bureau of
Standards. I have also measured AC from sub-Hertz to 12GHz to the
highest precision and certainties in the same occupation. The body of
science and engineering is not confused about this demarcation.

For any purpose of discussion, DC is regarded by science and
engineering to mean either:
1. Static, non-changing potential (your discussion violates this);
2. Constant, unvarying current (your discussion also violates this).

If your current or voltage cannot subscribe to these commonly held
descriptions, your currents and voltages are not DC.

My description of the experiment mentioned wave front several times. I
also assumed a steady current behind the wave front. Why are we
concentrating on the DC part to the exclusion of the wave front?

BTW, congratulations on measuring characteristics out to several decimal
places. That takes great care, precision, and skill.

Is there some harm in considering Zo = 1/cC?
This is best left in the privacy of the home.
It seems that a simple yes or no answer could suffice here. How is
"privacy in the home" related to Zo = 1/cC?

I have stated the harm several times, repetition does not seem to be
adequate in that your having perceived benefit is a personal choice. I
see no reason to dwell on the subjective.

Please elaborate about the "death grip on DC".

How is DC related to
waves, or better, where does DC stop and waves begin?

It was your premise. If you cannot explain it (and I see absolutely
nothing that would help you explain it) - then this is obviously the
end of the matter to which I first (see that question above) asked you
about.

This again goes to defining the unit of DC that we wish to assign a
velocity to.

Should we never
consider any portion of a wave to be DC like we do in calculus routinely?

Calculus is done "by parts." In derivation DC is the first thing to
disappear! In integration, DC arrives as an unknown! If this
discussion of Calculus were to progress any further, it would involve
dt which imagines no past, no future, just now. DC comes equipped
with all three nailed down to the same value.

Am I to understand that the only use of the term "DC" that you will
accept is "A steady state without beginning or end, having always
existed, and will exist forever more". Of course such a thing would not
have a "wave front"

My original remark about about Zo = 1/cC expressed my surprise that such
a relationship existed. It was not an original discovery by me, only
new knowledge to me. From your reaction, this must be the first time
you have run across the equation and how it might be derived. I
provided two links to web pages where others have derived the equation
from a different aspect, and even more pathways exist. It seems to be a
very fundamental relationship despite being not well known or wide used.

It is no more fundamental than when Tennessee state law mandated that
the value of PI would be 22/7ths. Your fundamental is merely a
shortcut, not a fact of nature. Like that Tennessee law, you can't
use it for very much when push comes to shove. I certainly wouldn't
buy tires based on the circumference calculated from Tennessee law.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

A shortcut assuredly. Also another view of the physical world. Use it
when helps understanding, and abandon it when the model fails. After
all, no matter what precision we measure to, we are just working with
models. Perhaps the next decimal of precision will reveal a flaw or
hole in logic.

73, Roger, W7WKB

On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:04:34 -0800, Roger wrote:

Am I to understand that the only use of the term "DC" that you will
accept is "A steady state without beginning or end, having always
existed, and will exist forever more". Of course such a thing would not
have a "wave front"

Hi Roger,

Exactly. This has always been the definition for DC. For anything
else, there are already terms that have been provided for decades,
unto more than a century.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 15 Dec 2007 12:04:34 -0800, Roger wrote:

Am I to understand that the only use of the term "DC" that you will
accept is "A steady state without beginning or end, having always
existed, and will exist forever more". Of course such a thing would not
have a "wave front"

Hi Roger,

Exactly. This has always been the definition for DC. For anything
else, there are already terms that have been provided for decades,
unto more than a century.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Hi Richard,

OK. I will remember this for making future discussions more exact.

73, Roger, W7WKB

Richard Clark wrote:
It is no more fundamental than when Tennessee state law mandated that
the value of PI would be 22/7ths.

Good grief, that goes against The Bible which says the
value of PI is 3.0 and "everyone knows" The Bible cannot
be wrong because God inspired it to be written that way.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com